project_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It lists the returned fields, indicating a read-only query by the verb 'Return', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens when no project is loaded, or any error conditions. It adds value by enumerating the returned data but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action 'Return' and immediately lists the returned data. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient: it lists all returned fields. It does not specify the exact return format or data types, but for a simple info-getter this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides a complete picture for a basic tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to supplement. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description appropriately focuses on outputs rather than inputs, and no parameter semantics are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'current UE project', listing specific fields (name, engine version, path, content directory, loaded level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_info or level_actors, which target different aspects of the Unreal environment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: one would use this when needing project-level metadata. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' context, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions for when this tool should not be used. The usage context is self-evident but not explicitly articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.